Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review

Introduction

The Nikon D5 is the company's flagship action-oriented DSLR, sporting a 20.8MP full-frame sensor, 153-point autofocus system and a full-size, double-grip chassis that is both tough as nails and exceedingly comfortable to use. Though the core build of this camera remains very similar to the D4S, the sensor and autofocus system are entirely new and - as we'd expect - designed with speed and reliability in mind.

Nikon D5 Key Specifications

All new Nikon-designed 20.8MP full-frame image sensor

Expeed 5 processor

All new 153-point phase detection autofocus system with 99 cross-sensors

Automated autofocus fine tune

Native ISO range now stretches from 100-102,400

12fps continuous shooting with full autofocus and autoexposure

4K video recording

Offered in dual CF and dual XQD memory card configurations

Touchscreen functionality during both stills and video shooting

CIPA rating of 3,780 shots per charge using the same EN-EL18a battery as D4S

Due to its large size and tip-top placement in Nikon's lineup, the D5 originally struck me as a somewhat intimidating camera to put through a thorough review. But really, with a little bit of work to get it set up the way I like and the development of some muscle memory as to where all the proper buttons are, the D5 has proven to be one of the most reliable, and as such, one of the least stressful cameras I've ever had the pleasure of using. Of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't meant to be put through stressful situations. Quite the opposite.

Here's a quick comparison of the key specs of the D4S, D5 and 1D-X II.

Nikon D4S

Nikon D5

Canon 1D-X II

MSRP

$6499

$6499

$5999

Sensor

16.2MP CMOS

20.8MP CMOS

20.2MP CMOS

ISO range(native)

100-25,600

100-102,400

100-51,200

AF points

51

153

61

RGB metering sensor resolution

91k pixel

180k pixel

360k pixel

LCD

3.2" 920k-dot

3.2" 2.36M-dot touch-enabled

3.2" 1.62M-dot touch-enabled

Burst rate

11 fps

12 fps

14 fps

Video

1080/60p

4K/30p

4K/60p

Battery life (CIPA)

3020 shots

3780 shots

1210 shots

Dimensions

160 x 157 x 91mm

160 x 159 x 92mm

158 x 168 x 83mm

Weight

1350 g

1405 g (XQD)

1530 g

Clearly, there are some exciting innovations hidden beneath the D5's skin, but in the end, it's likely not the most exciting camera to the average consumer. So in an age of decreasing camera sales, why does Nikon bother to continue producing such machines? Well, in the most extreme of situations, phones and lesser digital cameras will simply be unable to capture the same sorts of moments that flagship cameras like the D5 are, from the get-go, built to capture.

2016 is an Olympic year, and it's not a coincidence that this year has seen new flagship DSLRs from from both Canon and Nikon.

Here is the beef

There's no denying that the Nikon D5 is one beefy camera. Without a lens, it weighs 1405g, or just over three pounds. But there's a good reason for that. The D5 is over-engineered on purpose - it's built to take a knock, a drop or a flying rock kicked up from a dirt-bike. It might even take a bullet, but we're not really allowed to test that. And with a properly sealed lens attached, the D5 should also stand up to a downpour and freezing conditions with ease. This camera comes with a tough magnesium-alloy shell, one that feels like you could pound nails with (we didn't try).

The D5's robustness means I can focus more on the action and less on whether or not I'm going to hurt the camera. Processed and cropped to taste in Adobe Camera Raw. Photo by Carey Rose. Nikon AF-S 300mm F4 PF | F4 | 1/2000 sec | ISO 200

Another contributor to the D5's beefiness is its battery. It's CIPA-rated to 3,780 shots, which not only promises an absurd amount of shooting between charges, but is also a sign of increased efficiencies within the camera. Despite more megapixels, a faster burst rate and a more computationally intensive autofocus system, the rating has increased compared to its predecessor, which uses the same battery pack. (Fun fact: to save you the trouble of opening your calculator app, the CIPA rating of 3,780 shots actually only translates to five minutes and fifteen seconds of shooting at its burst rate of 12fps.)

The Evolution

I'm a long-time Nikon shooter, but not one that's personally invested in pro-level bodies from the Dx series. At first, if you've used even a semi-pro body from Nikon's recent past, you'll feel familiar with the D5. But when you get more familiar with the camera (and as we cover in detail on our 'Body & Design' page), Nikon's made some changes to the button layout of the D5 that will have some users scratching their heads, and others praising the ergonomic improvements from the added level of button customization.

In summary, the D5 is a camera that will be lusted over by a lot of enthusiasts, but largely abused by its intended customer base - working professionals. These photographers will simply pick it up, do their best to re-assign all their buttons the way they had re-assigned them on their D4S's, and get to work. For long-time sports shooters and wedding photographers, a more comprehensive rethink and redesign of cameras like this would probably not go over well.

Instead, the evolving Dx line continually provides meaningful updates that will make it easier for established pros to capture images that they already know how to take. In this vein, the D5 is indeed a worthy upgrade and successor to the D4S for a number of reasons. So without further ado, let's take a closer look to find out why.

Comments

Thanks for a great and comprehensive review. I'm glad to see flagship bodies finally getting reviews on DPR! I'm looking forward to your review of the 1DXII as well, not because I'm interested in following the Canon vs Nikon debate (having used both), but because I'm curious to know if there are any major differences between the two flagships.

The NX1 and Fuji X-Pro 2 are both great cameras, and I very much enjoy them both, but I can guarantee you with almost 100% certainty that people are not cross shopping those cameras with the D5. And has been covered in the review, pushing many stops on the D5 is going to result in noisier images than getting your exposure correct in the first place.

Just as a curiosity what lenses would the high end sport and nature shooters the target market of the D5 be using on the NX1 { a near dead system I might add} Nikon have lenses covering from 14mm – 800mm along with a selection of teleconvertors. There are also numerous options available from third party manufacturers. The only fast telephoto in the NX system is I believe the 50-150mm lens with an effective focal length of just 225mm.

If you were a low ISO only shooter and did not mind joining a dead system the NX1 is a damn good camera but even for you this post is beyond silly.

I have no interest in the D5 just as I suspect those interested in the D5 will have zero interest in the NX1. The D5 is a specialist niche tool designed for heavy pro use

I do have a strong interest in shooting 4k and that is why I have Panasonic m43 cameras along with Nikon D810. I honestly think that the NX1 was/is the best APS mirrorless camera on the market or not on the market as the case may be.

@tecnoworld: Amazing, how relentless you are defending the NX1 and implying it to be an alternative to a D5. Both have totally different design goals in mind. Pulling shadows 6 stops is not a design goal for a D5 at all, especially if images (often jpgs instead of raws for sport shooters) are send to the client within half an hour. It makes of course sense to shoot thousands of images and pull 6 stops from base ISO? Stupid idea if you are at 1/2000s-1/4000s and use f4 to f5.6 tele lenses indoors or in dim light. Your base ISO will certainly not be ISO 100. And then the D5 will be class leading in DR at those ISOs (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D500,Samsung%20NX1). Not to mention the AF, which will certainly not come close in a NX1.

Hflm, I don't defend anything. I'm constantly stunned at how good the nx1 is, even against very top end cameras like d5.

Did you shoot 10000+ images with nx1? If not, how can you comment about its af? It is totally different from a dslr. But it's as effective and more precise, if use correctly.

And...yes, I always shoot iso 100. What's the problem with it? I can transfer my images via wifi to my laptop, batch process them in lightroom and send some 28mp stills in few minutes via email, if I want to. And probably, nx1+laptop will weight less than a d5 body only :-D

Kinda makes you wonder what's possible if you put a lot more horsepower behind the metering sensor and dramatically increased its resolution. Could you achieve facial recognition? Could you lock on to a particular persons face and then track them anywhere they go, immediately finding them again even if they disappear from view? Or object recognition in the same manner? Maybe the camera could have a database of the faces of players in a soccer match and you could tell it which one to find. Or the ability to decipher which player is in control of the ball and track that person. Maybe not for $6500 but what about $65,000? Or more? It should be possible.

Actually, the D5 does have face recognition, but not as sophisticated as you describe. You can see this with Auto Area AF being heavily biased toward faces if the camera can decipher them, even through the viewfinder.

As far as registering faces to look up later? There are a number of cameras on the market with that feature, but it's probably a little ways off for cameras shooting at 12fps.

I've looked into face recognition in order to try to catalogue my pictures. With the current crop of softwares, the person has to practically be facing the camera straight on (approx 30° left or right, 15° up or down) in order to correctly identify a person and the lighting must be good. So this was a no go for my dance photography.

Sony cameras already do that more or less. Indeed if you have multiple faces you can register the face priority on that. Additionally Sony cameras have eye detection, so rather than picking the tip of the nose or other facial features it is very successful in tracking and focusing on the eyes. Unfortunately the AF is not as fast in tracking fast moving subjects, especially if moving toward or away from the camera, but for general use it is very fast and accurate.

I was thinking of surveillance cameras in downtown London and Manhattan. If they catch a few good angles on a person, someone on a watch list can be identified to a high degree of certainty, automatically by computers. And if autonomous cars become a reality then subject identification will be needed. Instantly. Is it a rock, a person or a paper bag? For fast moving and hard to predict sports and wildlife subjects, AF is where it's at. I would suggest that this kind of subject distinction and discrimination is where the tech logically needs to go. I'm sure some military contractor is working on it, only it's a 65 million dollar camera.

This is clearly a superb specialist's camera. Nonetheless after perusing the review I remain bewildered that Nikon didn't give it a killer DR, at all ISO's, and 50MP, making it the defining camera of our time. I have no use for an amazingly expensive 20MP, compromised DR niche product and can't imagine why Nikon didn't swing for the fences. It seems there's enough volume and weight in this body to have accomplished the ultimate, not merely fill a niche.

Seriously? Dow do you intend to save 50MP images to CF/SD card at 12fps with today's technology? That is roughly 600MB/s that you want the camera to process and save. And keep DR up at high ISO with smaller pixels? And keep the great battery life? All these are design tradeoffs. In time they all move forward, but every iteration of a camera can only push some of these aspects whilst neglecting others in order to remain in the realm of reality.

I'm sure some of the constraints and challenges you name were an active part of Nikon engineering nothing grander than this pleasant niche product. Doesn't mean I have to like it, though, nor must I accept the hypothesis they couldn't have made a far more powerful, universal model.

ABOVE 1600 ISO, the NIKON D5 has the HIGHEST DYNAMIC RANGE of any Nikon tested by DXO (capitals used for clarity.) The Nikon D5 enjoys 0.5 to 1 stop EXTRA dynamic range at higher than 1600 ISO sensitivity than the D4, which was the previous best Nikon tested.

If one is going to use measures to complain about low DR at lower ISOs, then one should acknowledge high DR at higher ISOs.

I know people dismiss DXO, but at least it is a quantitative measure. It's a starting point, so long as you don't get lost in the numbers. Which is where people are going wrong by ignoring the D5 sensor's tremendous performance above its baseline ISO.

@Alex VelascoYou might have missed this: D5 has the worst iso invariance on the market right now. Lagging even Canon. Which means you cannot take advantage of the lower ISO DR to boost your DR in low light.

Even clearer: A photograph taken ABOVE ISO 1600 with the Nikon D5 will give the BEST RESULT of any camera tested by DXO to date. The best noise AND the best dynamic range. You get: 14 bit images with FAITHFUL and SUBTLE COLOURS, deeper shadows and brighter highlights acquired under difficult lighting conditions.

Nikon engineers, in this instance, clearly knew what they were doing by making prudent choices within the constraints of the technology.

Don't let them break you. I have to remind myself in this day and age of digital photography non-creators rest their laurels on specs, rather than a body that's capable. Especially if none of their photos are printed.

In this instance the D5 is a more than a camera, it is a tool to fit a Artisans needs that works to a particular standard. That isn't to say it isn't for the general public(last I checked GREEN is good everywhere), but it truly is designed for a working professional.

As I stated above:"One of the main objectives of ISO invariance is to shoot at low ISO and to apply a strong nonlinear tonal curve in post with (non linear and local amplification rather than a uniform and global amplification via ISO number) :1) Much increased DR2) Lower noise in highlights and midtones as they are amplified to a lesser degree.For instance, assume you have a scene you are going to shoot at ISO 3K. Instead you can shoot it at ISO100 or, to say ISO400, depending on the circumstances. When applying a tonal curve and local adjustments only the shadow and darker midtones will see a ISO 3K signal boost, while the brighter areas will have a 100-1000 ISO noise range, and you are also protecting your highlights"The D5 is a very powerful tool, yet I would not pick it myself for this very reason. Unless for shear speed in sport photography. Shooting Canon for years I am well aware of the limitations of an ISO variant sensor.

Armandino. That is new a technique that few professional photographers use because VERY few cameras have ISO invariance (including your Canons.) Pro photographers will occasionally underexpose by 1 or 2 stops to avoid clipping highlights. Taking photographs that are so underexposed that you cannot visually verify the exposure is too risky. Imagine, you cannot even check focus! Therefore experienced photographers will always set the ISO and exposure that is appropriate to the scene, and visually verify the image. It's faster downstream, there is less post-processing and more certainty.

@Alex Velascoyou make it sound too risky and challenging. I do it all the time with plenty of success with my A7RII. You are very right that sport photographers could not care less. However "Professional photographers" are not just sport photographers. Just today I was commissioned to take pictures of a special IMAX event. Guess what? I needed to get both the crowd and the screen decently exposed... Good luck with the magical D5.

Challenging? No, just underexpose ridiculously. Risky? Sure, and not worth the risk. The kind of photo you're talking about, I shot in the days of film. It's called double-exposure. There are many ways to skin a cat.

My first set had a problem, a visible vertical line on every image. Brought it down to Nikon Service Center, after a 3 minute inspection, they said it had to be replaced. I believe it was a sensor issue.

Got a new set. Very happy so far with it. Using it to shoot my baby indoors in available light (not much!). I think I will still keep my D3 as a backup.

I finally realized what I like about this camera's color rendering: Even though it lacks the DR of its predecessor and that of the higher MP cameras down the line, it is able to maintain a great color saturation in the highlights. Even in the highlights, the color gradations are subtle up to the point of white clipping. It reminds me of the "ancient" D2X and its color profile which had something special. So yesterday I did a test on my theory, shooting RAW with my 5D MkII: I noticed that the color saturation and the gradations in the highlights were.. well, pretty slim... I guess that's the reason (beside shifting towards reds) why people differentiate between "Canon colors" and "Nikon colors". Btw, I shoot both Canons and Nikons so I don't have a bias...

This was a really great review, for a number of reasons. I have seen many ignoramuses complain about the D5's "base ISO" scores, and DPReview correctly dismisses this.

Hellooo ... for blazing-fast action, NO ONE is using ISO 64 (or even ISO 100), so 'low ISO dynamic range' means nothing in action photography. Add low-light conditions, on top of the need for speed, and "base ISO scores" become absolutely meaningless.

Nikon knows this, as do people who take action shots.

This camera is designed to capture action, at the highest possible level, and it is here where the Nikon D5 sets THE standard to which all others can only "look up" ...

Having all the time in the world to set-up a base ISO shot is NOT, in a static conditions is NOT the same set of features you need ... when "the fleeting moment of a lifetime" is upon you!

If dpreview really wants to stretch himself above others, then comparative review of D5 and 1DxII would be something to watch out for. Having pros, shooting side-by-side with these two bodies under challenging conditions and swapping war tales would be just golden.

6000+$ bodies are bought for a reason and instead of a review in isolation, I suspect it would make epic reading when these heros would be challenged against each other by the people who shoot for a living, where every frame matters. Not that dpreview lacks talent or wisdom, but racecars need racing drivers to bring out the best (and worst) in them.

In general, my thinking has been this - if you pit two established, experienced pros from each system against each other, you would likely end up with a more valuable comparison of their different photography styles than the cameras' abilities. This is because I fully expect each photog will know exactly how to get the shots they need, whether they're using a D5 / 1D X II, or a D3 / 1D Mk IV.

And then, if we were to, say, force the D5 upon the Canon user and the 1D X II on the Nikon user, well, then, that's not really fair to them - learning an entirely new camera system won't allow them to completely focus on their photography.

The part I do completely agree with is the swapping of 'war stories' - but then, we have the question of whether the value of that more casual exchange is worth the investment of finding established pros to do said shootout, and whether established pros would even be willing to do such a shootout for us. And then there's the question of compensation.

Make it a best picture challenge, most pros love a good challenge. Have the Nikon pro use the Canon and the Canon pro use the Nikon for the challenge. Both will want to win so I'm sure they'll come away with great photos and have different take always on what they liked and didn't. In all honestly they are not that different that someone that is that well versed in a dslr wouldn't be able to use well after 15-20 minutes of tinkering with setting up buttons and menus the way they like. Even if I grabbed someone else's D4s I would still need a few minutes to set things up or at least check how that camera is set up and adjust.

As I hinted at, I think people will be surprised how similar the two cameras really are minus a few company quirks that someone might like or dislike. But the test will hopefully stop people from claiming one system is so much better than the other. And that it's easily possible to take great shots with either system as a pro.

I partly agree with Carey that having pros shoot for comparison, will probably yield some results on their personal preferences. But this is also very valuable stuff to take in - the pros have their shooting preferences but they also have experience what makes an excellent all-round pro body.

It should not be about creating conflict between the two top-notch makes but rather comprehensive comparative real-life exercise and feedback sharing from the ones who shoot action on regular basis. I would love to know from firsthand why some pro picked Nikon and other one Canon? What do they like/loathe about their current cameras? What do they think after shooting with other brand for some time? It would be more personal blog-interview style post than minute measurement of DR of some other technical stuff. We know now what is in the clock, and now we want to know how is to wear them and what time is? :)

@pkcpga - one last thought. When we posted our article where Dan and I shot the 1D X II and the D5 side-by-side at motocross, we got an awful lot of comments saying the AF system on the Canon takes 'years' to learn how to truly get the best out of it. I'm not going to confirm nor deny one system's complexity over another (and I personally think the 'years' claim smells fishy), but I'm simply saying that the notion that a pro will only need 15-20 minutes with a camera that's not from a system he or she has used for a decade or more is a little optimistic. Any moment you have to stop and look at the camera to find a button, or figure out which AF mode you should be using is a wasted shot, and you're not unlearning that level of muscle memory that quickly IMO.

This is more from personal experience, of course - I'm mostly a Nikon shooter, and sure, I can pick up any Canon camera and, in a manner of minutes, shoot a portrait no problem. Action sports? That's another story.

And all of my comments aren't meant to imply that we don't want to, or won't do something like you've described. We just want to make sure to do it right, and make sure it's worth both our time and our readers'.

I'm a Nikon user as well, but I've used canons from time to time and their set ups are not drastically different with fairly similarly placed programmable buttons. So you can program your most needed features and it may take a bit longer to get used to everything but not extremely long. I think most professionals can work around a decent a camera after a short trial and error period. They will no doubt get better results from their personal equipment but pros have all rented equipment from time to time and had to quickly get comfy with it. Though the article from the sports photographer was a very nice inside, I like how he compared it to the d3. This type of info reinsures my thought to at least switch one of my d4s over now instead of waiting for a demo or loaner to become available. It seems Nikon underestimated the d5 and d500 demand.

No it isn't.Low ISO DR is not as good as D750 but high ISO DR is reference, probably the best available for any FF body.Add 5D MK3 and Ideal FX (reference) to your chart and then come back and tell me it's a joke.

I've owned the 5D MK3 and the D750 and hated the D750.From it's dinky plastic body to it's tiny buffer to it's 1/4000s max shutter speed to it slow FPS, need I go on?I didn't even like the IQ out of it :(

The 5D MK3 is probably the most used body by professional photographers World Wide and you are telling me that they cannot make a living with this camera because it's DR is a joke?

Think of the D5 as having the IQ of the 5D MK3 with blazing fast speed, unlimited buffer depth and the best AF around and you would be better.

I LOVE mine and can speak from real experience, not from reading charts or listening to Internet BS.

@Peter62 - Calling the D5 a 'disaster' is a bit over-the-top, as is implying that low ISO values are required for 'quality photography.' You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but asserting your preferences as objective facts when it comes to a subjective medium such as photography seems a little unnecessary.

Also, Nikon's recent flagships have all lagged behind D750-level models in this vein, at least according to these measurements. The real takeaway here, I think, is that for a lot of people's photography, 12-13 stops of dynamic range is probably enough. And for those that need more, the market has options.

+EvilTed - You forgot to mention that the D750's shutter is so loud and snappy that one would think the shutter is about to shatter any second. When I shot photos of my kid and my dog with D750, both the child and the dog would blink their eyes every time the shutter snaps.... I never had such an issue with my Canon 6D although it's a much slower camera. In addition, I think Nikon should do more R&D on the lens formula so that they could make lenses at least par with Canon's.

Good camera, but hardly groundbreaking. Lack of anti-flicker mode will be a big turn-off for the pros who shoot infoor sport events with artificial lighting and might even be a reason to choos another camp.

Not sure it's as necessary today since the NBA and NHL both switched to LED lighting and outdoor stadium lighting is either halide or LED now. Even my children's school switched to LED, so strobing or blinking lighting with high shutter speeds is not as common today as a decade ago.

I've been shooting with Canon for a long time for many reasons - colors being one of them. I must say that I do like what Nikon is doing with their image processors right now. So far, everything I've seen from the D5 feels "right". Thumbs up. And of course, Canon is working on the DR to match Nikon

So at the end of the day, these brands are getting closer and closer each year. Ironic that fanboy keyboard-fighters are just trying to get them further and further apart. Interesting.

You want a landscape camera with amazing DR and lotsa pixels buy a D810. If you're a pap or a sports photographer or a concert photographer or a photo journalist or even a wedding photographer, you will most likely love this camera. Who gives a monkeys if base ISO is not up to par with other cameras... this is all about the night isn't it? And speed. This is for the paps getting shots of celebs falling out of a bar at 2am, wasted, and nailing the shot, or the last gasp touchdown in a night game, or that iconic shot in the middle of a warzone. It's not for me, to be sure, but for those that need a camera to be bulletproof (perhaps literally) it will do any job asked of it I'm sure.

I care. So do a lot of other photographers who feel that if they spend $6-8,000 on a camera body, that it should be able to perform amazingly at base iso as well as at iso 12,500, (and other high iso settings that I can actually use to make money).No, it's not all about night. It's about shooting an event tonight, and being able to shoot action portraiture tomorrow. Paps, photo journalists and sport shooters are just a sliver of people using these cameras on the job. Photojournalists are practically dinosaurs; with everyone having a cell phone, pap shooting isn't what it used to be, and sport photographers as a full time job? I'm not even going to go there... The bottom line is that if Nikon is going to make the D5 noticeably "average" at base iso, then it better be smooth as silk and knock my socks off at several stops over 12,500 iso... I'm just not sure it'll do that to my socks far and over 1DX2 performance.

Sometimes a book "How do I improve my skills in photography" are a better and cheaper solution than a expensive 12 fps "portrait" camera. It won't give you that skills. If you have talent and passion, a simple D300 or 7D does the job. I do not understand this DR fetish. No I don't.

Futurewah, I know what these cameras are used for. I own/been shooting the pro-brick digital bodies for over a decade. It's meant to be well-rounded fast shooting body that has attributes that can be used professionally in many facets of photography. People like me buy camera's for an intended purpose narrow in scope, however quickly learned that attributes such as DR and *video* make differences that affect time in post & increased revenue.

Lea5, "skill" is a wonderful thing, however it doesn't trump "business" and doesn't address limitations that increase processing time and lesson one's ability to reduce steps in post. What required 2-3 steps and or compositing in post using a 5D3 requires nothing of the sort when I'm using a MF CMOS back. Likewise, the time to get the shot using daisy chained packs-n-strobes and a 1Dx is an entire world apart from using slower bodies. 1-2 takes vs. 3-5 and multiply that by multiple clients and my slower bodies often cost me money.

FastGlassLover, DR benefits me whether I'm shooting single frames, or 3 fps using a MF CMOS, or if I'm shooting a gymnast action portrait at xx fps using strobes / hot lights + ambient. There's an irrefutable benefit to having more DR irrespective of what camera is being used. DR is an added attribute that does what "correct exposure" often can't. Save me time in post whether I'm shooting a client's 15 y/o son playing soccer or the daughter gymnast (portrait in motion to be printed on canvas).

Using the right tool is a given. Bottom line is that pro-body attributes that others and I rely on for sports, events, etc.; are the same attributes that others and I rely on for action portraits. Pro bodies are most versatile, because they do *most* things very well whether it's shooting dressage, races, or portrait of a client in a $12k ball gown riding a galloping horse down the beach.

The benefit of a high frame rate, iso performance, fast focusing and nuances in capabilities between say, a 1Dx and 5D3 are not lost on action portrait shooters.

There's a reason why Nikon/Canon keep raising their resolution and include video in their pro bodies. There's a reason why we'll have 50mp, 15+ fps, excellent video capability pro bodies in the future; likewise MF (medium format) will get much faster fps, better focusing with excellent video (the ideal product for me); manufacturers know what photographers like me will pay for.

Futurewah, that's great if a D810 works for that particular job. I use MF for slower paced work, but would love to have a fast raw shooter with close to the same colour range (DR). The action stuff I'd rather shoot at base iso (conditions willing) and capitalize on a fast frame rate so I can quickly wrap up the shoot which means not wearing clients out.

I find the pro bodies far more versatile, over the D810 / 5D3 variety for my usage. No complaints here with Nikon; just the realization that DR is important, especially when you're use to having so much of it. I never faulted Nikon, I just said that I (and others) care about DR and other facets of performance at base iso. If the D5 isn't great at base iso as well as high iso, I consider that a black mark.

I was disappointed when I first heard of the low base ISO dynamic range of this camera's new FF sensor, I thought it would have the highest DR of any current FF sensor available as Nikon's are usually very good in that department. Personally I'm much more excited by the D500 than the D5.

They are class leading where it matters. When you look at the pros from this review, anything whats on the left from the conclusion is, what buyers from a D5 need. DR is still good enough. My 1DX is good in pulling up shadows, but not very good in bringing back highlights. My D4 was they way around. Any Nikon I had was not very good in pulling up shadows (got noisy), but excellent in bringing back highlights. I expose different with my Nikons and different with my 1DX and even with my A7RII.I wished my D4 or 1DX could be better on very high ISO, for shooting at concerts for example, where sometimes I have to go at 25600 to shoot with a higher shutterspeed. When the singer or guitarplayer jumps around the stage in dim light. The D5 can do it brilliantly and I think the 1DXII too.

I only see sport photographers reviews. Of course the cannot care less of base iso DR (although I think they could really benefit from it if thinking outside their usual box). But it this expensive camera only for them?

Not sure that's a founded comment for the 1d and d5 since DCN reports about equal sales for both cameras. Canon certainly sells many more non pro apsc dslr than Nikon but at the top of the range they are pretty equal.

I know you're making a joke, but i'm pretty sure the lenses are white because white reflects the sun while black absorbs it, making the lens easier to handle when you are in a situation that requires you to be out in the sun for long periods.

I'm sorry, but I'm at the point where I'm done with DPR's very obvious Nikon bias. I really don't want to start a negative rant here. But come on, honestly, I must protest. DPR admits in a separate article of the D5's lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR. Further, look at FStoppers review of the D5. It is very clear to see the D5 hits its useful limit at ISO25600. Here at DPR if this was a Canon-equivalent pro DSLR, it would be demoted to Silver award. Further, DPR hasn't reviewed a Canon 1D-series in 6 years. Nikon D5 is a Silver award, nothing more.

Our EOS-1D X Mark II review is being worked on as I speak - the D5 was done earlier because Nikon sent us a camera earlier. No bias here, but let me know if you have any questions about our scoring system. I'm also assuming you've thoroughly read the review before commenting, of course.

@johnschafer - actually we never did a full review on the D4s (a 'first impressions review' is exactly that - it's what we used to call a 'preview' with a bit of analysis, but far from a full review). We tried to do the same thing with the 1DX when it came out (in 2011) but Canon wouldn't let us keep it for more than a few days.

@johnschafersince 4-5 years of daily readings in the DPR articles and reviews , i didn't find any "bias" words to any brand(s) .it's sometimes a miss-understanding or miss-leading "words" or "phrases" .in fact the DPR writers are pushed to the limits with all these products to review and give opinions about .

Anyone who decides to buy a D5 over a 1Dx Mark II only because of this review (coming out first) is pretty much a fool for doing so. Both the D5 and 1DxII will not disappoint though, but which one you would choose would likely not hinge on a DPR review.

If there was a big bias towards Nikon vs. Canon you wouldn't have had Barney's cool 80D video (sponsored by Canon).

There was a d5/1dx msrk2 Af performance comparison, it was interesting. I want to see from dpreview a d500/d5 Af comparison too.Like a previous póster said, eventhough they share the same Af system and technology, the d5 might be better but how much better? People here like alot comparisons between cameras of different brands, well it is time to see some between the same camera maker.

I don't have a D5 but I do have a 1Dx2, moved from 1Dx and all the 1D series since the II before that.

I'd say that Nikon has tended to have the edge in AF performance in previous generations and I think they still may at present, but the gap has been the narrowest since the D3 trounced the problematic 1D Mark III.

The D5 might be better in the lowest light (high ISO and AF) but the 1DxII is just behind it. However, faster FPS, base ISO DR and 4kp60 video are really strong features that make the 1DxII a better all around body.

Also Canon battery life has been slowly going backwards on the 1D series while the Nikon's have been going forwards.

It would be in the narrowest of edge cases where a Nikon shooter would have gotten significantly better results than a Canon shooter, and other improbable edge cases where the Canon shooter would have an advantage. I wouldn't hesitate picking a Nikon or Canon 99.9999% of the time.

I think you're right in looking for a D500/D5 shoot off comparison. Even though they may share the same AF sensor, all the subsystems after that are significantly different, although it may wind up to be a small advantage for the D5 in the end.

Thanks a lot for generating this awesome things.Standard sensitivity up to ISO 102400 — the highest in Nikon’s history — expandable up to Hi 5 (ISO 3280000 equivalent), providing further enhanced image quality throughout the standard sensitivity range, including the frequently used higher ISOs.

I recently handled a D5; very appealing (for me) ergonomics and controls! My D3s, and older Canon 1D-series bodies feel like bricks, in comparison. And, yes, being a Canon/Nikon shooter, the D5's ISO button being on the top right of the body will be a nice bit of compatibility, if I add a D5, for its low light capability. I regularly shoot with 7D Mark II and 5Ds R Canons, which have ISO buttons on the top right; it takes an extra moment, sometimes, to recall where to reach, to change ISO, when shooting a D700 or D3s.

Nice review, but it seems to me that the D500 is a better allrounder at almost the same level of the D5, with the exception of build quality and better battery build. As for IQ, the D5 easily beats the D500 in action sistuations, but I rather go with D500 than the 810 or 750 or 7200, because it's half a dozen of one or the other and none of them are perfect and the D500 has added abilities that overcome it's one IQ flaw.

I consider the D750 the better all-arounder in terms of price and performance. Saying that, it goes to show just how much better this round of Nikon bodies are than the last generation! Selection for everyone!

Since you have already used both D5 and D500, did you find any difference between these two with regard to the AF performance? I am well aware that they share the same AF module but it doesn't necessary translate into equal performance. D810 shares the same AF module with D4S but they don't perform equally. The same can be said when it goes to D800 and D4.

You know what? Being spoiled is sometimes bad. D750 iso invariance RAW is addictive. I don't feel much worried about the exposure because of it, but I'm afraid I would do terrible with D5. So... maybe my photo skills is getting worse? Maybe I have less expertise than a Canon shooter?

Why are people so hung up on whether dpr is being paid by the manufacturers? If you think the review is biased and unfair, state why you think that is. These dodgy bribery theories are getting a bit tiring to be honest. Dpr takes heat if they don't review enough and accused of bias if they review too much. Ridiculous.

I don't think it would be dishonest to be paid to review a cam (for example, you can rent the camera to a reviewer. This is a form of "payment" to review a cam). But best practices dictate that in this case you should disclosure it.

Nevetheless, it would be bad if the payment is to give a good rating.

If you think the rating is biased, the best defense you have is to speak its concerns and read other sources.

So... although I think DPR is not being biased by money, I think it is healthy to have some complains about that. It puts some pressure on reviewers to NOT be biased...

Class leading high ISO performance? Well maybe, but the D4s had that too. The real bugbear is the claimed leap in high ISO performance up to ISO 3m. To be honest I struggle to see ANY improvement at all over the previous generation - certainly if there is any, it's not as much as 1ev. The Hi ISO settings of previous models were already stretching it a bit, but Nikon has pushed this to levels which completely beggar credulity. I doubt I'm alone in finding that extremely annoying.

That's a great shame because I've no doubt the D5 is an astonishingly good camera - its autofocussing/tracking prowess does seem like a genuine stride. The marketeers always have to try and spoil things.

I usually only see an inprovement in ISO performance when they release the 'S' version - looking forward to seeing if Nikon manage to eek any more performance out of their sensor technology in the D5s.I guarantee they'll have all the issues everyone has with this body sorted out with the D5s too :)Not that it affects me in any way I can't even afford a 2nd hand D3 lol

CIPA ratings tend to be incredibly conservative for these big flagship cameras for some reason. I've shot a lot of 5K running type where I'll shoot 6-8K shots over the course of a few hours without dropping below 25% on my 1DX.

> CIPA ratings tend to be incredibly conservative for these big flagship cameras for some reason.

There are different ways to test battery performance and the CIPA test procedure is the most demanding. Nikon's manuals footnote the procedure but the significant part is that every other shot uses the flash (if the camera has an internal flash) at full power. The "Nikon standard" test procedure doesn't use a flash so the reported battery life is significantly increased.

For example, the EN-EL4a battery in a D700 is rated at 1900 shots (CIPA) and 4300 shots (Nikon standard). The 1Dx and the D5 have no internal flash so their CIPA numbers are much higher than expected, 3780 for the D5 (CIPA). But Nikon also has a "Nikon standard" number of photos for the D5 which is much less demanding than the CIPA test procedure even though no flash is involved. The D5's Nikon standard battery life estimate (using the EN-EL18a battery) is 8160 shots. The D5 manual describes both test procedures.

Exactly. CIPA results are only relevant for people that set up their cameras the way they're set up for the CIPA tests and for people that use a similar shooting style. That said, most reviewers (if they do their own testing) get numbers much closer to 350 (CIPA) than to 1500+ (yours).

Fuji makes it harder than necessary for Fuji owners to understand what their cameras are capable of because they only publish CIPA numbers in their manuals. CIPA testing is designed to put fairly heavy loads on batteries. Other companies (Nikon is one) publish CIPA results and "Nikon standard" results which can be as much as 2x or 3x greater than the CIPA numbers.

CIPA numbers are useful if you understand how your shooting style and menu options differ from CIPA's assumptions. An example : several years ago I had to copy images from a computer monitor using a Fuji P&S whose tiny NP-50 battery had a CIPA rating of 230 shots. Without using burst mode I got close to 800 photos per charge.

I hope I don't get slayed for asking this question, but here goes: for sample action shots like these, is it safe to say that for some the photographer is choosing what to focus on, and for others the camera is doing the work? Is it relatively easy to tell which is which? For example, the shot of the rugby players where the action up close is out of focus and the more distant player between them is in focus seems like a lucky shot, but likely isn't?

I think this is an excellent question balloonball.I'm not a sports shooter but I will say this based on my experience with focus tracking - the camera is definitely not doing the work :DWell...mirrorless cameras might feature better automatic modes but I've never really found intelligent context-sensitive focus to be something we've nailed technologically yet.Nikon's 3D tracking uses colour information from the metering sensor to try to predict which focus point to use dynamically as it moves around the frame. You still need to get the thing to lock on to your subject and track it in the frame.But I'm not going to discount luck - luck has brought me some of my best shots :D

It's also there for certain professional uses, like police or military photos were a not so great looking photo but being able to take the shoot and make out the person or item is important. If that high is necessary, who knows.

It's an expanded ISO. You can do the same thing if you take a photo with lower ISO and put exp +5 or whatever (with some caveats). So, it's there if you need, but you don't actually need to do it. So, I think every camera should not have a limit on ISO. The only thing I would say is that no company should claim superiority based on the highest possible selectable ISO.

I have a D800, D810, and a D4 to cover any extreme dynamic range I'll ever need. I purchased the D5 for the higher ISO capability in an action environment. The ability to freeze action in less than stellar light conditions is where it shines. It's also very handy with super telephotos lenses with TC's where apertures may range from f/8-11. I also own the D500 which I find to be an incredible camera as well. Yes, it's considerably cheaper than the D5 but, it can't match the FF in OVF clarity under lower light and there is a difference in higher ISO noise handling. Is it a remarkable difference? No, but it is noticeable when shooting side by side. If you can't afford it or don't want it don't buy it. Your decision to not purchase it doesn't make it a less than worthy piece of equipment. Pros know what works and what they want. I haven't seen any of them complaining about the D5 yet. I dismiss Canon shooter comments as them trying to justify their buyers remorse.Cheers

My complaint was lack of frame coverage with the AF sensors. Not everyone puts the subject dead-middle in the frame... and not everyone that likes to put the subject near the edge of the frame think mirrorless cameras are acceptable.

This is a very good camera. However crop sensor 1000$ Nikon D7200 has much better dynamic range value (D5: 12,3 vs D7200: 14,6). This is a real shame. I dont understand the reason for this failure. Nikon may have decreased sensor performance to get more speed. If you dont need speed D810 is still the king for Nikon users. FF does not mean better results, for macro FF is useless, for wildlife crop sensors are much better. Money is not everything.

dpreview: "Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."

Why does everyone keep regurgitating that same Internet spew?Do you own a D5?Do you find yourself pushing the shadows 5 stops between 100 and 800 ISO?I know I've never, ever had to do this with any camera.

for the Nikon D5 against the Canon 5D MK3 - yes, the camera that a vast majority of professional photographers still shoot.Do you see anything?Yes, the D5 has better low ISO DR and much better high ISO.

Case in point is most professional photographers know how to expose correctly...

So yes, the low ISO is a tad better than the 5D MK3 but not as good as the D810.Guess what, the D810 is slow and not near as good in low light as the D5.Add Ideal FX to the chart.Notice anything?The D5 is close to reference.

I bought a D5 after the bogus DxO test because I rented one for a day and shot a sporting event for 8 hours solid, racking up 9000 images.It's close to perfect for a DSLR.

I often pull out the very last bits when doing night shoots with my D4. I won´t buy a camera worse to my current.For sure, the AF system performance and other things will be improved over the D4´s but for me I don´t need that, others do of course. I don´t like things that improve in one regard and lose in another, but that´s just my opinion.We find it everywhere now, D5´s DR is clearly worse to the D4´s.

I'm impressed. For working professionals, the D5 is going to help them make a living. They will be able to get the job done and that's what counts. The motocross, the rugby, the wedding, the stage shots - all great stuff. PP or not, if you get the shot, you're golden. The D5 appears to be a winner. ;-)

I'm still thinking if the old approach not to review the flagships from Nikon and Canon was not the right approach?Who actually benefits from such reviews? Pro photographers and the handful of enthusiasts who actually don't care about the findings?The resources spent on reviewing these complex cameras could be spent better by directing the attention to the mainstream gear.A few people who ask for such review will likely never buy the equipment. On the other hand, it is commendable that DPReview takes all the wishes regarding gear review so seriously that they will review any gear there is to avoid the criticism of the readership, no matter how small it can be.

we're a publisher - if enough people read things we're happy. We don't assume everyone reading this review is in the market for a D5 any more than most readers of a Ferrari review can ever do anything but daydream :)

Reviewing flagships shows what the top of the line from every brand has to offer, the latest and greatest features -which usually a couple of generations later will be embraced by more consumer-oriented models.- Agree, I cannot afford the Audi e-Tron but that doesn't mean I don't like reading about it :)

I would wager the 20K AF module will make its way into lesser cameras going forward, it's interesting for anyone to see what Nikon can do and what's possible with their best effort. Heck of a lot more interesting than another cell phone camera review.

Technology introduced here should find it's way into consumer models later on, in theory. However the approach for these flagship products seems very conservative: a little faster, a little better than before. No experiments. I saw a video review that put the Canon D1 X II and the Nikon D5 side by side - and they do look almost identical! So if I'm keen to see what the best $1,500 camera might have in 1-2 years, then maybe my clues should come from what Sony is doing with their A7 series.

Reviews of gear like this (and the Sony a7R II to pick another recent example) give us a benchmark, against which to measure everything else that comes along. We don't prioritise cameras like this over (say) D800 or 5D-class products because our audience is typically a little less interested in them, but I'm glad we could get this review out in a timely fashion, since it's such an interesting camera.

"I'm still thinking if the old approach not to review the flagships from BMW and Mercedes was not the right approach?

Who actually benefits from such reviews? Some rich people and the handful of enthusiasts who actually might care about the findings?

The resources spent on reviewing these complex machines could be spent better by directing the attention to mainstream cars.

A few people who ask for such review will likely never buy those models.

On the other hand, it is commendable that DPReview takes all the wishes regarding cars review so seriously that they will review any car there is to avoid the criticism of the readership, no matter how small it can be."

I have a D5 and I think this a a very fair and balanced review. It's nice to read a review from someone who has actually used it for awhile vs, someone who picked one up in a camera shop to shoot a YouTube video.

Very nicely written review and Carey you took some very nice shoots, both with motocross and soccer. I like how well the d5 held focus even with another player moving in front of the original player, might be worth the upgrade from my d4s, gives me a reason to try one. Since I do remotely shoot cameras at times, thanks.

Sigh...I miss my Nikon gear. But, unlike film cameras, new digital SLRs drop in value faster than new automobiles. Heck, it's how I got my D3s - 1/2 the list price just a week after the D4 came out. Sold it for 1/2 that 4 years later when I realized I just didn't shoot enough. Still, stuff like this makes me drool. Thanks for letting us normal folk live (and shoot) vicariously through your reviews. :-)

Nikon has announced more details of firmware in development for the Z6 and Z7. As previously reported, firmware is being planned that will add Eye-detection AF, CFexpress support and Raw video over HDMI.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.